Tech Editor, just my idea of it.

We have kind of strayed from this. And apart from FPs and TOs, there's still a lot to decide. Here is my idea of what it should be like.

You will have a set of pre-made parts for you to choose from. These will range from panels to tubing to metal pieces etc.
More parts will be available when more resources are found.
Each part will have a card that shows:
Name:
Resource:
Info: (What it's mainly used for, what stats it would add to that Tech etc.)

You will also have a panel of Function Parts.
Function Parts (or FPs) are specific, unique Techs that do specific things (eg. a hydraulic piston, pump etc)
We'll have to make a long list of them.
FPs will be avlable through resources and specific research.

Okay, i just found a rather old document on my computer that i started and never finished. It's a TE concept. So, i'll post a link to it here:
http://download695.mediafire.com/vk061aozcutg/f65e2bb660xqluk/Tech+Editor+Concept.doc

From the looks of it, i gave up when i hit the values of function parts. I couldn't think of any more, and the old forums collapsed, sod it kind of got buried. Anyways, have a read. Anything you can add, or disagree with would be helpful. Also, tell me if the images don't work, i might have to upload them too.

I remember a lot of this, and this is kind of what i was talking about when i said the TE could be more like the OE. Looking at it now though, i find it pretty hard to imagine actually doing this. I think piggybacking on an existing modeler is still the way to go, because a lot of people will already be familiar with it. The function part stuff is pretty good, but things like directionality, i just don't see how that works or why it's needed. The current idea of function parts as modeler components that do things in-game is a little easier to understand. I'm still kind of leaning towards more freedom and using an existing modeler.

Good digging, AK.

Oh and the pictures do work.

I remember that one Alaska. But what i really think is that we should just have construction type parts and FPs.
While we all agree that we'll have FPs (and a wide range of them). I think we have to decide what the other, construction-type parts we'll have. (eg. panels, bricks, woods etc.)

What I was thinking with my idea here (I'll edit it a bit more, since I was tired) is that we'll have our constructing parts separated by either resource or what it is mainly used for. (the player could pick the filter)

So here's an example if I wanted to say, make a car-like-thing:

-I'll use the metals tab and build a frame with the desired metal-like rectangular parts.
I'd use then flat-type metals for doors. Glass for windows. etc.
-Once I have the main 'frame' of my car, I'd put in the function parts that are used to make it work.
So I'd make an engine with those parts (or select the 'car engine' Tech Object if I've already made one)
and place it in my car.
-After my technical part is done, I'd finish my car off with decorational objects (chairs, paint)

Really this is a basic idea of it. It might not always go in the order of Frame>FPs>Decor; but thats what the player is for, to figure out when he/she must put in the desired parts to make that tech work.

Now you might think this idea is too complex. But really it is not. The player won't actually have to build a full on car, but just the basic parts (a frame with the doors and other shells, continuing with the engine, wheels and piping; finishing with the chairs and other asthetics).

Also, if needs be, the player will use a mannequin to see if that Tech is sizeable enough for their creature.

Thats how I always pictured it, however, instead of using premade parts, it would be done by placing stretchable geometrical objects and assigning materials to them (IE more friendly to Sketchup).

Commander Keen wrote:

Thats how I always pictured it, however, instead of using premade parts, it would be done by placing stretchable geometrical objects and assigning materials to them (IE more friendly to Sketchup).

Yeah, that makes more sense. We could have both though, if players like it either way.

@Scio: Other than merging structural and decoration into construction, i don't see how it could be any more like a 3d modelling program. As for function parts, those values are not defined by the player. Those are all the values that are attached to FPs. The game will need these values to know how the FPs affect the Tech Objects. It's not as simple as putting an engine in a car and telling the game "now it can drive around". I hope that clears that up.

@YB: Why do we have to define that? All we need to do is define the properties of resources in the world of the player (eg, stone-can be cut, chiseled into shape), and then the player can choose any resource and any shapes to put it into the Tech Editor. I don't understand why we need to define things like wooden panels. That would simply be the player creating slabs of material:wood that are thin and assembled one after another.

Also, are you actually expecting people to make car engines??? You say "So I'd make an engine with those parts (or select the 'car engine' Tech Object if I've already made one)", But i would expect that constructing an engine is beyond most people's general capabilities. So maybe there should simply be an FP that IS an engine? And how will paint be applied if there is only a panel for placing shapes? The player would want a simple way to apply thin, colouring material like paint.

@Keen: The only premade parts are FPs, i don't understand??? What you've outlined is how i like to imagine it.

US_of_Alaska wrote:

@Scio: Other than merging structural and decoration into construction, i don't see how it could be any more like a 3d modelling program. As for function parts, those values are not defined by the player. Those are all the values that are attached to FPs. The game will need these values to know how the FPs affect the Tech Objects. It's not as simple as putting an engine in a car and telling the game "now it can drive around". I hope that clears that up.

@YB: Why do we have to define that? All we need to do is define the properties of resources in the world of the player (eg, stone-can be cut, chiseled into shape), and then the player can choose any resource and any shapes to put it into the Tech Editor. I don't understand why we need to define things like wooden panels. That would simply be the player creating slabs of material:wood that are thin and assembled one after another.

Also, are you actually expecting people to make car engines??? You say "So I'd make an engine with those parts (or select the 'car engine' Tech Object if I've already made one)", But i would expect that constructing an engine is beyond most people's general capabilities. So maybe there should simply be an FP that IS an engine? And how will paint be applied if there is only a panel for placing shapes? The player would want a simple way to apply thin, colouring material like paint.

@Keen: The only premade parts are FPs, i don't understand??? What you've outlined is how i like to imagine it.

That clears things up a lot. What I'm saying here is that modeling is actually a lot easier than placing and adjusting parts in most cases. The idea of the tabs is good, but lots of people will want simplicity over form or function, so a lot of this kind of seems redundant. I'm going to put up my ideas once i sort them out.

With premade parts I was pointing to YBs "wooden panels".

Offering both FPs (valves, cylinders, gearbox, ...) and Kit Techs (Small Engine Set, Small Fueltank, ...) is going to satisfy both mainstream and hardcore players. However, constructing your own Techs from scratch would naturally be a little more effective, since you can tailor it to the enviroment you are in. Also, construction from FPs would only consist of connecting 2-6 FP types at maximum to keep it simple.

Players should be able to change FP values a bit. Either by scaling the part, or by modifiing it by the system "you can add here if you subtract there" - you might add to engine's power, but you have to lower it's torque (and vehicle max speed in result).

Commander Keen wrote:

With premade parts I was pointing to YBs "wooden panels".

Offering both FPs (valves, cylinders, gearbox, ...) and Kit Techs (Small Engine Set, Small Fueltank, ...) is going to satisfy both mainstream and hardcore players. However, constructing your own Techs from scratch would naturally be a little more effective, since you can tailor it to the enviroment you are in. Also, construction from FPs would only consist of connecting 2-6 FP types at maximum to keep it simple.

Players should be able to change FP values a bit. Either by scaling the part, or by modifiing it by the system "you can add here if you subtract there" - you might add to engine's power, but you have to lower it's torque (and vehicle max speed in result).

This. The most complex TOs (engines for example), wouldn't need much work, only a player with brains.
Plus, we could have guides to making an engine/successful car, but that would only be for the very casual player.

@Scio, what exactly do you mean by modeling the parts on? Do we create the parts when we're building the Tech?

@YB In my version of the TE, you don't have "parts" except for FPs. I imagine the best way to allow a wide variety of techs is to base our TE off of an existing 3D modeling software, such as google sketchup, because players will be able to model whatever they like, as long as they know the basic tools. Also, if we were to use sketchup, we would have a large library of user-created content available in the sketchup warehouse, and many people would be familiar with the modeling system already.

YourBreakfast wrote:

This. The most complex TOs (engines for example), wouldn't need much work, only a player with brains.
Plus, we could have guides to making an engine/successful car, but that would only be for the very casual player.

@Scio, what exactly do you mean by modeling the parts on? Do we create the parts when we're building the Tech?

Still don't like this. At all. I am not making my automobiles' engines. That is what my Belgium researchers have just researched! Are you telling me they have to figure it out, and then i have to figure it out? Sense making none. And what about when we hit future techs? 'Oh, it's as simple as rearranging the superconductor alloy into a certain shape. Here's a three hour guide on how to do so.' No.

Basically, if my people have discovered the research 'Automobiles' i expect they know how to make them go.

US_of_Alaska wrote:

YourBreakfast wrote:

This. The most complex TOs (engines for example), wouldn't need much work, only a player with brains.
Plus, we could have guides to making an engine/successful car, but that would only be for the very casual player.

@Scio, what exactly do you mean by modeling the parts on? Do we create the parts when we're building the Tech?

Still don't like this. At all. I am not making my automobiles' engines. That is what my Belgium researchers have just researched! Are you telling me they have to figure it out, and then i have to figure it out? Sense making none. And what about when we hit future techs? 'Oh, it's as simple as rearranging the superconductor alloy into a certain shape. Here's a three hour guide on how to do so.' No.

Basically, if my people have discovered the research 'Automobiles' i expect they know how to make them go.

QFT
However, research wouldn't go to "automobies, it would probably go to ICE, gear technology, etc, the things that go into making an automobile.

@Alaska and Scio- Read this post:

Commander Keen wrote:

Offering both FPs (valves, cylinders, gearbox, ...) and Kit Techs (Small Engine Set, Small Fueltank, ...) is going to satisfy both mainstream and hardcore players. However, constructing your own Techs from scratch would naturally be a little more effective, since you can tailor it to the enviroment you are in. Also, construction from FPs would only consist of connecting 2-6 FP types at maximum to keep it simple.

Players should be able to change FP values a bit. Either by scaling the part, or by modifiing it by the system "you can add here if you subtract there" - you might add to engine's power, but you have to lower it's torque (and vehicle max speed in result).

What you would want would be Kit Techs, premade Tech objects that you get when you finish the research.

Also, construction from FPs would take 1-15 minutes, based on how much you want to fiddle with the tech. It would be just 2-6 FPs at max, and the parameters would be adjusted by arrangement, scaling and the "you can add here if you subtract there" system.

Commander Keen wrote:

@Alaska and Scio- Read this post:

What you would want would be Kit Techs, premade Tech objects that you get when you finish the research.

Also, construction from FPs would take 1-15 minutes, based on how much you want to fiddle with the tech. It would be just 2-6 FPs at max, and the parameters would be adjusted by arrangement, scaling and the "you can add here if you subtract there" system.

My point about futuristic technologies still stands. Just how will the player make a warp drive? You've given them the option to earlier, why not now?

We will have to look at the Wiki for these. Warp drive.

Either a connection to very strong powersource or a battery with very high capacity. space-warping device and navigational device. Kit Tech for all of this would be Warp Drive.

Commander Keen wrote:

We will have to look at the Wiki for these. Warp drive.

Either a connection to very strong powersource or a battery with very high capacity. space-warping device and navigational device. Kit Tech for all of this would be Warp Drive.

That's not a bad idea, we could bundle separate FPs into larger ones, which allows a lot more flexibility, while retaining simplicity. I like this.

Well, as long as the Kits are included, i'll be fine. Carry on.

We should have the option to set something as a template tech, so you can make variations on it for different companies, for example.

The Uteen wrote:

We should have the option to set something as a template tech, so you can make variations on it for different companies, for example.

Actually, having slight variations is probably worth bringing up... Will it be worth having variations on techs? Will it be too taxing to remember them all?

US_of_Alaska wrote:

The Uteen wrote:

We should have the option to set something as a template tech, so you can make variations on it for different companies, for example.

Actually, having slight variations is probably worth bringing up... Will it be worth having variations on techs? Will it be too taxing to remember them all?

Not all tech need to have variations, just common things like buildings, vehicles, and spaceships, so they don't all look the same.

It wont be needed for tools, and most other techs.

A similar thing could be used for organisms too, but with changes, organisms aren't tech, after all.


EDIT: I just spotted this has actually has been mentioned before:

~sciocont wrote:

Commander Keen wrote:

~sciocont wrote:

Commander Keen wrote:

That would not be only for buildings, but all tech objects. These styles then would be applied to procedurally generated objects.

Procedurally generating techs may be a little far fetched...

So, AI countries will use just pre-made techs? We could base it around templates, adding random variations depending on the "style" and research level of that civ. That should not be as difficult as procedural from scratch.

It does sound better- or we could consider a different approach to the TE entirely, making it more like the OE.

I don't think the variations idea came to a conclusion, though.

I really think that if we're going to base this off of Google Sketchup we're going to have to do some serious modifications. I imagine each object could be crafted in-game via tools, then put together via Tech Editor, but then we'd need to have a pretty impressive physics engine. I'm talking to the level of realism. Then again, there are such programs as ZBrush and Sculptris (basically a free version of ZBrush, read about it/try it out here!) that show that it is possible to simply sculpt out an object to achieve a certain result. Thus once the user has mastered this technique they will become a virtual michelangelo!

Wait...

...that'll be even harder to program than the Tech Editor, but it will be more realistic. I mean I don't want to open an entirely new program every time I want to make a new object. But, well, maybe you could import objects from SketchUp and other programs to the game but I don't think it should be the other way. But programming the sculpting/chiseling/etcetera in-game...

/inf_loop

And what about physics? What about your object having a reaction to the ground, the buildings, transportation, decor? Collapsing towers (I know what you're thinking, but no offense is intended)? Bashing in brick walls (this is a lot more common)? How could we possibly simulate such massive physics without crashing the game, let alone having the player's framerate drop by a few dozen?

@noit- everything that is in the game will behave how it is made to behave, so you could have a model of a brick wall that's just a box with a brick texture, or you could have each actual brick stacked up on top of each other. Players will probably choose the first one, unless they have a God PC. Physics will only apply in test mode, so you can build anything you like in the TE, but it has to pass inspection first to make ure it doesn't fall apart.
I know the use of an outside editor seems tedious, but the idea is to actually incorporate the sketchup editor environment into the game for the TE. It will be like opening up sketchup, but in our game window, with our part libraries, with our default tool set. It'll be a lot easier to mod Sketchup (or another modeler) into our game than to create outr own TE that's less easy to use.

@Uteen- random variations for techs sounds good, because they could be created instantaneously, but not stored. Things like tools could have low variation, while things like clothing could have very high variation.

I had a similar "variants" concept in head for last two days, but always forgot to post it. Thank you for bringing it up, Uteen!

Basically in TE, users could select any already existing Tech, and create a "variant" for it. These variants would be modified versions of the parent Tech. Changes would range from different weapon loadouts on military vehicles to completly different car models, the only limit on changes would be that the Tech has to stay at least vaguely similar to the parent Tech.

The game itself would also randomly create variants based on Techs, simulating creativity of people (this would corespond to tuning cars, but also to car companies producing new car models).

Commander Keen wrote:

I had a similar "variants" concept in head for last two days, but always forgot to post it. Thank you for bringing it up, Uteen!

Basically in TE, users could select any already existing Tech, and create a "variant" for it. These variants would be modified versions of the parent Tech. Changes would range from different weapon loadouts on military vehicles to completly different car models, the only limit on changes would be that the Tech has to stay at least vaguely similar to the parent Tech.

The game itself would also randomly create variants based on Techs, simulating creativity of people (this would corespond to tuning cars, but also to car companies producing new car models).

So the last sentence there, you're suggesting the game auto-evos tech objects by variating and making better? That would save the player a lot of time, only needing to make the very first car and then making more car designs is optional. Very, very good.